Clearly if instant = permanent, then the shortest duration is 1 round/level.
Um, I think you may have misread Stephane Le Roux's post. He actually says the opposite.Thank you for proving my point that every spell with an instantaneous duration that has some sort of permanent effect mentions it in the spell. Very nice of you.Which means unless it says otherwise in the description it flashes and goes away. If it lasts longer then that it would be in the spell descripton, since there is no mention in the individual words that it does, when the duration is instantaneous the spell comes and goes in an instant.Every Instantaneous spell with an exception in it's description.
Nope, I read it properly. He just proved my point, unintentionally. Because clearly by his description of Instantaneous, a fireball is permanent.
I wouldn't necessarily say that it's a particularly common interpretation. I'm pretty sure most people on the boards go by the RAI. Still, the RAW of it is murky.
but the belief that you can create instantaneous buffs with words of power is SO common on these boards that many people see it as a failing of the subsytem itself (and then don't use it as a result).
I don't know about everybody else, but I pay for writing, I don't pay for intentions.
Nope, I read it properly. He just proved my point, unintentionally. Because clearly by his description of Instantaneous, a fireball is permanent.Did you actually read the description of the fireball? Or did you chose an instantaneous spell at random, hoping that you're right?
Fireball
A fireball spell generates a searing explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure.
You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. An early impact results in an early detonation. If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.
The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.
The damages last forever. So does the different secondary effects (set fire, melt metal, etc).
Anyway, where did you see any mention of a duration for flesh to stone? That's the first example I used, and you claim that it prove your point. Please explain.
So by that logic if I dispel a Flaming Sphere any damage that it did goes away, since it has a duration and then is not "permanent". Flesh to Stone instantly turns you into stone instantly, and was mentioned under the description of instantaneous as a side effect of the magic.
EDIT: As I said before the spell has an instantaneous duration, because the effect is permanent, not the effect is permanent, because it has an instantaneous duration.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know about everybody else, but I pay for writing, I don't pay for intentions.I wouldn't necessarily say that it's a particularly common interpretation. I'm pretty sure most people on the boards go by the RAI. Still, the RAW of it is murky.
but the belief that you can create instantaneous buffs with words of power is SO common on these boards that many people see it as a failing of the subsytem itself (and then don't use it as a result).
I guess the question is what level the writing should be geared towards?
Should you have to explicitly spell out something that's mind numbingly obvious to 99.9% of your readers to please the .1% who can either figure it out or ask and get a straight forward answer?
Most people don't want a LAWBOOK filled with piles and piles of mind numbingly redundant text to handle every little rules hack, they want some guidelines for kicking back and hanging out with friends. Yeah, you want things to be as tight as possible, but you also don't want to have to repeat things that are obvious.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
My friend want usable content.They don't want to add a bunch of houserule to have playable content. Because they can create houserules themselves in the first place: they pay Paizo to do this job, but if Paizo fail to deliver... That's why they don't buy splatbooks any more.
Like I said, sometime the intend is obvious, sometime not. We can't even discuss of the broken things with non-obvious intend, because nobody even know what it's supposed to do; the developers themselves don't know (eg: share spell and the synthesist, former FAQ). If the developers were able to create things which work as intended, there would be no problem with non-obvious intend: the thing just does what's written, which make sense.
You have pulled my comment out of context, start to reply to it, then seem to launch into a general rant about some other things which don't relate.
My comment was meant for the context it was posted in, not as a general comment about every error or omission in every book paizo has published.
|
This:
I don't know about everybody else, but I pay for writing, I don't pay for intentions.That's the context of your response, doesn't it? and that's in this context that I'm responding.
I can rephrase my response: the job of a game designer is to transform intentions into playable stuff. We don't need any game designer to have intentions or ideas; it take less than a 6-second round to formulate an intention: "it would be cool to have an alternate magic system, in which we create spells by choosing the target/zone and different effects". It take far more time to transform this intention into a playable rules.
If the rules aren't playable, the job is not done, and my friend don't want to pay. That's true even when the intend is clear.
------
RAI are a myth: since we can't read the thoughts of the designer, only the RAW exists, the text written by the game designer; his whole job is to transform his intention into RAW.
Stephane,
It does take more time to and effort to generate that system. Isn't it lucky that Paizo spent that time to do it and so saved your friends, who all appear to be super-genius game designers the hassle of doing so? Frankly, assuming their target audience has the intelligence of a cheese sandwich and can understand that if an interpretation of the rules breaks the game in half, chews it into little pieces, pisses on them and then sets light to what's left that it might not be the right interpretation seems to be a reasonable assumption to operate under.Apparently this is in error and Paizo should instead assume we're all robots without a molecule of common sense between us just to please literalists who want to twist the rules in their favour.
If SKR ceased insulting peoples when he's wrong, it would be a good start of "what Paizo should do".
Agreed. It's totally bad form, and also appears to be a trait that is quickly becoming more and more common among game designers these days.
Apparently this is in error and Paizo should instead assume we're all robots without a molecule of common sense between us just to please literalists who want to twist the rules in their favour.If SKR ceased insulting peoples when he's wrong, it would be a good start of "what Paizo should do".
You might want to take that advice as well.
Instantaneous means the magic goes away instantly, there is no magic to dispel after that . Honestly most of the spells that have an instantaneous duration that have some lasting effect are described that way really so Dispel Magic isn't the most powerful spell in the game. Not to mention in this case we are dealing with something that has a defined duration that is being shortened occurring for an instant. If you can't understand that then maybe you just need to write your own rules for it. Anyway good luck with your game and don't ever play 1st edition.
|
|
Agreed. It's totally bad form, and also appears to be a trait that is quickly becoming more and more common among game designers these days.
If SKR ceased insulting peoples when he's wrong, it would be a good start of "what Paizo should do".
Do you think it could have anything to do with a bunch of people twisting and torturing the English language and leaping on every slight bit of imprecision to declare, frequently and loudly in the designer's virtual back yard, that the game broekn and the designers unfit to do their jobs? Do you think that after a few months of this, the designers might just feel a little bit irked and be less than charitable to the people doing that? Possibly?
...Uh, to answer the initial question.
Ultimate Combat is both the better and more disappointing book.
Ultimate Magic could be renamed Ultimate Wizard for all the love it gives the class that needs it the most. But it has the Magus, and the Magus is p. damn cool, so there's that to it's favor. On the other hand, outside of the Magus, there really isn't much in UM that calls to me. UM also had a lot of "class abilities" that ended up being utter trash, be they monk vows, ranger traps, or bard masterpieces.
UC has a lot more feats that actually call out to be used, and a lot more archtypes that I think will see more use. Ok, the three new classes aren't great - the gunslinger is a hot mess, the samurai is just boring, and the ninja is "rogue but stabbier." Still though, UC has more stuff. UM was taken up by pages on top of pages of spells that generally aren't going to see much time in the sun for various reasons.
Both books tried to showcase optional rules - Words of Power, piecemeal armor, called shots - and every single one was bad.
So why is UC disappointing if it's the better book? Because I didn't expect much from UM. I thought "Oh another bad book that's an unneeded love letter to wizards" and hey I was right. But UC? UC I spent time wishing that I was wrong about it inevitably turning into another wizard lovefest. But at the end of the day?
In earlier editions, before 3e, fighters didn't really have class abilities other then various means to do more damage. But they did have magic items. See, not all classes could use all magic items - in fact, the vast majority of magic items were only for the fighters. So in a way, magical items were the fighters' class abilities.
Ultimate Combat didn't give the fighters anything new or unique. None of the archtypes bring anything new to the table. None of the feats are "fighter only." It didn't give them a single magical item. But it did devote multiple pages to spells for wizards. And that's a damn shame for the book meant to be the counterpart to Ultimate Wizards.
Do you think it could have anything to do with a bunch of people twisting and torturing the English language and leaping on every slight bit of imprecision to declare, frequently and loudly in the designer's virtual back yard, that the game broekn and the designers unfit to do their jobs? Do you think that after a few months of this, the designers might just feel a little bit irked and be less than charitable to the people doing that? Possibly?Agreed. It's totally bad form, and also appears to be a trait that is quickly becoming more and more common among game designers these days.
If SKR ceased insulting peoples when he's wrong, it would be a good start of "what Paizo should do".
If you can't handle people attacking your publically released product, don't release it publically.
Yeah, it sucks when people troll or others get nitpicky to the extreme. But at the same time, that's the cost of making it public.
@ProfessorCirno
UC has one fighter only feat, it's called pin down or something.
|
|
Do you think it could have anything to do with a bunch of people twisting and torturing the English language and leaping on every slight bit of imprecision to declare, frequently and loudly in the designer's virtual back yard, that the game broekn and the designers unfit to do their jobs? Do you think that after a few months of this, the designers might just feel a little bit irked and be less than charitable to the people doing that? Possibly?Agreed. It's totally bad form, and also appears to be a trait that is quickly becoming more and more common among game designers these days.
If SKR ceased insulting peoples when he's wrong, it would be a good start of "what Paizo should do".
If you can't handle people attacking your publically released product, don't release it publically.
Yeah, it sucks when people troll or others get nitpicky to the extreme. But at the same time, that's the cost of making it public.
Eh, designers are only human. Eventually, after enough hammering, even the strongest board will snap. I propose there are a lot of very heavy hammers around in some parts of this forum.
If you can't handle people attacking your publically released product, don't release it publically.
Yeah, it sucks when people troll or others get nitpicky to the extreme. But at the same time, that's the cost of making it public.
It's also not an excuse to insult one's customer base, no matter how stubborn and annoying they may be.
As a public product, we have every right to criticize its flaws just as much as we have to praise it.
None of us have insulted him. Therefore he has no right to insult us in turn by alluding to our being "dishonest" and "obtuse."
So glad I screenshotted that little exchange on Facebook before it got deleted...
Would you E-mail that to me please? raven_dark64@hotmail.com
I'm just curious. I promise I won't make a "thing" out of it.
|
I admit that the "permanent buff" interpretation was silly, but there are precedents of instantaneous spell effects being permanent ; and WoP being an alternative system, there could always be the possiblity that not every way to cheat this new exclusive system was envisaged by the developers, thus leading to a hole breaking the whole WoP system - and no will from said developers to correct it since they will probably never use it later in their products (something which was pretty much confirmed again in this thread).
It's not like there was never a need for FAQ in Paizo's products, and I'll admit I never played with the WoP rules because I simply saw with the "permanent buff" interpretation that there seemed to be a lot of potential for abuse, and thus probably some other ways to do much worse. The rules just didn't seem clear enough to play with them without headache and wondering every second if we weren't doing it wrong. When something as game-breaking seems to be possible in a system that doesn't seem like the developers care much about it anymore, even if the interpretation is wrong from the beginning, it creates a lack of confidence that just makes you ignore it and keep playing with what you know is working already.
But on the other hand, saying that the "permanent buff" trick is totally legal and could work as written in a game is either seriously lacking of common sense, or being dishonest just for the sake of being dishonest.
I thank you for your clarifications on the WoP, SKR. I could actually use this system when doing a new character now. But I feel that you should at least put one entry about this in the FAQ, just for those of us that, without lacking the intellect nor the honesty to read the RAI over the RAW, tend to prefer the rules to take them for idiots if this means there is nothing that needs clarification later.
So an instantaneous effect added with an effect with a duration (let's say, healing 1d8 + adding 2 str) gives a WoP spell with an instant effect, healing 1d8 and adding strength just before vanishing, effectively healing 1d8 and doing nothing more ? A wall of stone + fireball would appear in fire and vanish instantly ?
Heh. I was disappointed, too, until I have realized that I was laboring under certain misconception.
Guys, Ultimate Combat != Ultimate Martial therefore we are wrong to expect stuff for martial classes only.
Now, that I've found this out, I know I can rest a bit easier.
On a more serious note, I believe that more feats, more items, more classes, more DAMAGE and more maneuvers are wrong answers to martial-magical disparity. My players don't want me to go beyond APG. I think I'll honor their wish.
For the record, I am of the opinion that martial characters need powers beyond certain level, be they superpowers or ToB maneuvers. So, in my best imitation of Mrs Moneypenny:
Jaaames...
Yes, Mrs Moneypenny?
Would you read Tome of Battle and Mutants and Masterminds for me? M is very upset with your oldfashioned approach.Regards,
Ruemere
My issue with your initial statement is that Ultimate Magic was in essence "Ultimate Not Fighters And Mostly Wizards." The counterpart should naturally be "Ultimate Not Wizards And Mostly Fighters."
Instead we got "Ultimate Not Fighters And Mostly Wizards" and "Ultimate Martial Classes With Some Fighters And More Wizards."
I asked once long ago if Paizo would be willing to do something WotC was not willing to do until near the end of 3e and make books with no arcane spells or wizard content. So far, it seems they are not.
So an instantaneous effect added with an effect with a duration (let's say, healing 1d8 + adding 2 str) gives a WoP spell with an instant effect, healing 1d8 and adding strength just before vanishing, effectively healing 1d8 and doing nothing more ? A wall of stone + fireball would appear in fire and vanish instantly ?
Yes. It's obvious (to me, at least) that Jason created the "combining spells uses the shorter duration" rule because he didn't want players to add an instantaneous spell (such as healing) to a round/level spell and (a) not know what happens to the instant part, or (b) assume that the instant part activates continuously or every round.
|
|
It's obvious (to me, at least) that Jason created the "combining spells uses the shorter duration" rule because he didn't want players to add an instantaneous spell (such as healing) to a round/level spell and (a) not know what happens to the instant part, or (b) assume that the instant part activates continuously or every round.
It's obvious to me, too. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be clarified in a future printing of Ultimate Magic, though.
There are people on these boards who are very adept at finding ways of exploiting or misinterpreting the rules. However, they also point to weaknesses in the wording of the rules that could easily be corrected.
One of the selling points of the Beginner Box was that it was an opportunity to clarify the rules so that new players would be able to understand them more easily. I think that's very laudable.
If you apply the same intent to future printings of all of your rulebooks, I think it becomes far easier to view the naysayers and rules lawyers of the site as less of a nuisance, and more of a resource.
Just a thought.
|
I'm not sure if it's right to shift all the blame to the developers. The issue with instantaneous duration already existed in the Words of Powers playtest, but back then, no one mentioned it.
That doesn't do much to change my opinion that Words of Power are a poorly thought through waste of paper. The option to combine effects becomes pretty worthless once you realize how limited that is.
Systems like piecemeal armor are also broken, but they took a lot less place than Words of Power.
There's also the Synthetisist which by now has about half of the UM FAQ dedicated to itself.
As far as I can tell, no part of UC is that puzzling. The book has some issues but not nearly as much as UM.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
That's the context of your response, doesn't it? and that's in this context that I'm responding.
Actually, no. It is the comment previous to mine which establishes little context.
RAI are a myth: since we can't read the thoughts of the designer, only the RAW exists, the text written by the game designer; his whole job is to transform his intention into RAW.
Exactly what level of intelligence should we assume the reader has?
Shouldn't they be written for people capable of grasping simple abstract concepts like the distinction between a magical effect "Magical Flight" and non-magical "Burn Damage", caused by a fireball?
Does a designer really need to spell out that burn damage from a fireball is permanent and that magical flight ends when a spell does?
Maybe YOU want a book designed around this idea that is designed around the lowest common denominators of understanding but I don't, and the vast majority of people don't.
|
|
I think it's also worth noting that anyone who believes that the "Rule As Intended is a myth" has a complete lack of understanding of reality and /or even the concepts of language. Although if you should publish a rule-set that isn't open to interpretation I will apologize and take back everything I've said.
Do you know the rules of Chess, Go, Tic-Tac-Toe ?
I have never heard of RAI while playing any of these games and a myriad others.
|
|
RAI are a myth: since we can't read the thoughts of the designer, only the RAW exists, the text written by the game designer; his whole job is to transform his intention into RAW.Exactly what level of intelligence should we assume the reader has?
Shouldn't they be written for people capable of grasping simple abstract concepts like the distinction between a magical effect "Magical Flight" and non-magical "Burn Damage", caused by a fireball?
Does a designer really need to spell out that burn damage from a fireball is permanent and that magical flight ends when a spell does?
Maybe YOU want a book designed around this idea that is designed around the lowest common denominators of understanding but I don't, and the vast majority of people don't.
Usually, the problem with RAI is really not a matter of intelligence but a matter of what is explicit (RAW) and what is implicit (everything else).
The more things you keep implicit, the more debate you will have based on the RAW which are the common language of the readers/players.
If something is obvious to you (say that Apples are green and not blue), you will likely not mention it and make references to it without even thinking. Of course, such references based on an implicit belief/worldview will be completely baffling to people for whom what you consider obvious is not clear at all, or even unreal. For example, you will have a hard time (and lot of misunderstandings) communicating with japanese people, since in japanese, Apples are blue and not green.
The real challenge when writing a ruleset is to find the appropriate balance between expliciting everything and keeping the rules concise enough.
Declaring that people who want better/more precise RAW are aiming for the lowest level of intelligence does not help in any way I can see.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I think it's also worth noting that anyone who believes that the "Rule As Intended is a myth" has a complete lack of understanding of reality and /or even the concepts of language. Although if you should publish a rule-set that isn't open to interpretation I will apologize and take back everything I've said.Do you know the rules of Chess, Go, Tic-Tac-Toe ?
I have never heard of RAI while playing any of these games and a myriad others.
The rules of those games are essentially simple mathematical constructs. There are no abstract concepts, 99% most of the rules of those games can be memorized in a 1 hour session and are simple enough they can be verbally communicated.
How is that even relevant?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Maybe YOU want a book designed around this idea that is designed around the lowest common denominators of understanding but I don't, and the vast majority of people don't.Declaring that people who want better/more precise RAW are aiming for the lowest level of intelligence does not help in any way I can see.
The fact that I didn't use the word intelligence was deliberate. Please don't assume that's what I meant.
|
As far as I can tell, no part of UC is that puzzling [as UM]. The book has some issues but not nearly as much as UM.
Is that due more to the nature of the product, than any inherent quality of the writing?
Since UC is focussed on martial abilities, there's more of an unspoken understanding between the writers and readers, of what upper limits are intended.
Every feat, talent, trait, or class ability can be objectively measured against what we know to be the human potential.
And, while high-level PCs can often break the limits set by Olympic medal-winners and world-record holders, those real-world limits still serve to provide a common reference point.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
If something is obvious to you (say that Apples are green and not blue), you will likely not mention it and make references to it without even thinking. Of course, such references based on an implicit belief/worldview will be completely baffling to people for whom what you consider obvious is not clear at all, or even unreal. For example, you will have a hard time (and lot of misunderstandings) communicating with japanese people, since in japanese, Apples are blue and not green.
It's obvious to me that apple is a fruit. So if there is a rule:
"Eating fruit gives you a +1 fruit bonus to your Constitution bonus for one round."I don't think designers need to write:
"Eating fruit (apples, oranges, peaches, pears, bananas, tomatoes, etc) gives you a +1 fruit bonus to your Constitution bonus for one round."
It is a waste of words and can be just as destructive to do so because then players start asking "Tomatoes aren't fruit, they must mean fruit and vegetables."
|
|
If I approach the system wanting to duplicate wall of stone, and discover I can do so by combining it with a blast of fire on arrival, at the cost of one higher spell level, I'll probably shrug and go cool. If I then notice that I can use the same mechanics to do all sorts of other things that the designers fairly obviously did not intend, I start to wonder how the system is supposed to work. Was it intended that I be able to recreate the wall of stone (and a number of other instantaneous/long term effects from Vanacian magic) and the loopholes were a development oversight, or was I not supposed to be able to recreate some fairly routine Vanacian effects despite the fact that the fluff of the system says that Words of Power allows casters to control the "very forces underlying magic, shaping and wielding them like no other."
That's one reason why this isn't quite the "asshattery" and "deliberately dishonest" argument that a number of people are calling it.
I don't think that you "discovered" that you could produce a Wall of Stone by combining it with a blast of fire on arrival. I think, rather, that you interpreted the rules to work that way. Some people (and a few designers) might disagree with this interpretation.
However, much of your argument is based on the assertion that if the rules allow "X" (where "X" is something that most(?) people believe is not allowed), then why can't I also do "Y" and "Z"?
I do agree, however, that the rules for Words of Power could use a bit of cleaning up.
Also, I think it helps to accept that there are some spell effects from the Core Rulebook that simply can't be created with the existing Words of Power.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Not to derail the thread, but tomatoes are so a fruit.
Which is why I used that exact example :P